The Debate of God.

[Curious George]

What if I upgrade or enter a virus? then would not the parameters change?

Yes, but the parameters change is the point. I didn't say the parameters couldn't change. For instance if I had numbers in a hat and I withdrew the number 9. the number 9 was in the hat. It does not matter if I put it there; someone else put it there; or it magically appeared when I pulled it out. The fact that it was pulled out changes what was the nature of the system. That is: the system did include a 9.

And for all of you funny fellows it was not just an upside down 6.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Yes, but the parameters change is the point. I didn't say the parameters couldn't change. For instance if I had numbers in a hat and I withdrew the number 9. the number 9 was in the hat. It does not matter if I put it there; someone else put it there; or it magically appeared when I pulled it out. The fact that it was pulled out changes what was the nature of the system. That is: the system did include a 9.

And for all of you funny fellows it was not just an upside down 6.

Have to go, maybe continue tomorrow.

 

[Thief]

Your idea of life after death is very limited. I don't think you understand what 'limited' means in this context.. Your bar for 'almighty' is set very low. He never got anything right, after all.
Creations: flawed
angels: rebelled
son: dead
World wide flood: didn't kill everyone
followers: rampant sinners, mostly addicts. Highly confused. Reject obvious science.

lol

Stand up with your angels over you and ask them about it later.

I'll be laughing in Valhol. And probably on my way to plunder your pearly gates of their gems. I might want a nice necklace for a pretty Valkyrie.

And this makes God less than Almighty?

Haven't heard of any successful rebellion.
His Son is with Him.
Denial is a sure fire ticket to hell.....
so I've heard.

 

[godnotgod]

OK. Good exchanges. But now, what if the program that God devised is actually a game, a drama to be acted out, and that God himself decided to engage himself in the game, that is to say, in more conventional terms, 'to become flesh', wherein he took the character he decided to play so seriously that he became lost in it, and actually believed himself to be that character in reality? In other words, what if God forgot that his presence on earth was a game he himself had devised. In forgetting his divine nature, he would bind himself to the rules of the game in a manner that makes the game a serious endeavor, in which the rules become overly important, especially in light of the fact that he knows no other reality beyond this structured game he calls life. He would end up being you and I and all manifestations of the universe, playing all the parts simultaneously, in a cosmic game of Hide and Seek. In fact, he would be playing the game so intently, that to attempt to awaken him from this trancelike state, he would resist you tooth and nail. The more you try to tell him that the character he is playing is only part of a game that he himself had devised, and the rules are not ultimately to be taken seriously. He then would cling ever more fiercely to his character, perhaps accusing you of outright criminal heresy in suggesting such an idea. So you would need to devise a trick to make him see through his own delusion. Nothing else works.

Now, what if, further, when God strictly and very solemnly forbade Adam and Eve to eat of the Forbidden Fruit, he did not actually mean what he was saying. In other words, by commanding them NOT to eat of the Fruit, he was creating a trick, a piece de resistance in the minds of Adam and Eve, who took the rules of the game of life seriously, he was actually ensuring that they DO eat of the Fruit, by piquing their curiosity, KNOWING full well that they would do as all children do, and do exactly the opposite of what they were commanded NOT to do? To what end, you might ask? Think of Adam and Eve as having forgotten their divine nature, living the life of an ordinary human, and think of the 'Fruit' as a symbol for the divine nature, or Higher Consciousness. By forcing them into breaking the arbitrary rules of the game (which have become all too serious) by overcoming their resistance with an object of DESIRE, and partaking of the 'Fruit', they can then awaken and return to their former divine state, 'awakening' here being equivalent to their eyes being opened. Remember that the serpent told them that the reason God did not want them to eat of the Fruit was because God did not want them to 'see as He sees', which is none other than God, or Higher Consciousness.

So here is an example of God's 'logic' which is not logic in the ordinary sense at all, but pure logic in the higher sense.

So in terms of OUR human experience at this moment, we ARE the divine nature itself pretending to be whatever character we now find ourselves immersed in, firmly believing that character to be the real McCoy, when, in fact, it is pure fiction. And if you go to a Zen temple, they might give you a koan, a riddle to 'solve' which will trick your rational mind and you will awaken to realize who you really, really are. No amount of belief, logic, thought, or reason will convince you; only a powerful transformative experience can do that, where you see that what you were seeking was right under your nose all along, and you end up right where you are at this very moment.

Now go and thoroughly enjoy your 'Forbidden Fruit'. Just don't take it too seriously, LOL.

And, oh, by the way, the serpent in the version of Genesis I have presented? He is none other than the Godhead himself, playing the part that ensures that Adam & Eve eat of the Forbidden Fruit. There is no Boogeyman, folks. He is just part of The Big Act. Get over it, or go stark raving mad, LOL.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

And this makes God less than Almighty?

Yes, obviously

Haven't heard of any successful rebellion.

In what way was it not successful? haven't heard of Satan being defeated.
'Getting away with it' counts as victory if your opponent claims to be unable to lose.

His Son is with Him.
Denial is a sure fire ticket to hell.....
so I've heard.

Im sure people have said it to you many times

 

[Heathen Hammer]

OK. Good exchanges. But now, what if the program that God devised is actually a game, a drama to be acted out, and that God himself decided to engage himself in the game, that is to say, in more conventional terms, 'to become flesh', wherein he took the character he decided to play so seriously that he became lost in it, and actually believed himself to be that character in reality? In other words, what if God forgot that his presence on earth was a game he himself had devised. In forgetting his divine nature, he would bind himself to the rules of the game in a manner that makes the game a serious endeavor, in which the rules become overly important, especially in light of the fact that he knows no other reality beyond this structured game he calls life. He would end up being you and I and all manifestations of the universe, playing all the parts simultaneously, in a cosmic game of Hide and Seek. In fact, he would be playing the game so intently, that to attempt to awaken him from this trancelike state, he would resist you tooth and nail. The more you try to tell him that the character he is playing is only part of a game that he himself had devised, and the rules are not ultimately to be taken seriously. He then would cling ever more fiercely to his character, perhaps accusing you of outright criminal heresy in suggesting such an idea. So you would need to devise a trick to make him see through his own delusion. Nothing else works.

Now, what if, further, when God strictly and very solemnly forbade Adam and Eve to eat of the Forbidden Fruit, he did not actually mean what he was saying. In other words, by commanding them NOT to eat of the Fruit, he was creating a trick, a piece de resistance in the minds of Adam and Eve, who took the rules of the game of life seriously, he was actually ensuring that they DO eat of the Fruit, by piquing their curiosity, KNOWING full well that they would do as all children do, and do exactly the opposite of what they were commanded NOT to do? To what end, you might ask? Think of Adam and Eve as having forgotten their divine nature, living the life of an ordinary human, and think of the 'Fruit' as a symbol for the divine nature, or Higher Consciousness. By forcing them into breaking the arbitrary rules of the game (which have become all too serious) by overcoming their resistance with an object of DESIRE, and partaking of the 'Fruit', they can then awaken and return to their former divine state, 'awakening' here being equivalent to their eyes being opened. Remember that the serpent told them that the reason God did not want them to eat of the Fruit was because God did not want them to 'see as He sees', which is none other than God, or Higher Consciousness.

So here is an example of God's 'logic' which is not logic in the ordinary sense at all, but pure logic in the higher sense.

So in terms of OUR human experience at this moment, we ARE the divine nature itself pretending to be whatever character we now find ourselves immersed in, firmly believing that character to be the real McCoy, when, in fact, it is pure fiction. And if you go to a Zen temple, they might give you a koan, a riddle to 'solve' which will trick your rational mind and you will awaken to realize who you really, really are. No amount of belief, logic, thought, or reason will convince you; only a powerful transformative experience can do that, where you see that what you were seeking was right under your nose all along, and you end up right where you are at this very moment.

Now go and thoroughly enjoy your 'Forbidden Fruit'. Just don't take it too seriously, LOL.

And, oh, by the way, the serpent in the version of Genesis I have presented? He is none other than the Godhead himself, playing the part that ensures that Adam & Eve eat of the Forbidden Fruit. There is no Boogeyman, folks. He is just part of The Big Act. Get over it, or go stark raving mad, LOL.

The idea has occurred to others, of course. If it were somehow true then at least God would not be the morally reprehensible character the false premise [ie., if his actual arrangement is taken as-read rather than as a benevolent deception to nudge people toward knowledge] makes him appear.

The concept is probably too philosophically sophisticated to be accepted, alas. Most of the people who follow the rote, prefer it, because it grants them moral authority [and in many cases, spiritual 'powers'] they do not earn, and the haughty judgment of others of the self-righteous.

But, as I've said before, if I were God imagining other people, I definitely would have made most of you a lot smarter.

 

[cottage]

If you lived in Plato's Cave for your entire life, and one day caught a glimpse of the sunlight, you would be forever changed.

Catching such a glimpse is not belief, is it?

So you begin with an assumption formed from some internal imagery from which you then run to a conclusion. I can quite accept that someone has had an unusual or life-changing experience, which is both vivid and meaningful, a phenomenon that is not particularly uncommon. And I can believe that you believe you’ve experienced supra-reality. But what I’m disputing with you are your extravagant, unsupported assertions and claims to absolute knowledge.

Now, after having done so, you COULD build a doctrine around your vision, and make others believe in that doctrine. That is what religion is: a second hand account of the first hand spiritual experience. Is this difference clear to you?

And that is just what you’ve been doing all along, giving second-hand information. You are posting on a religious forum, not a philosophy site, you copy and paste your high priests’ words verbatim, you post youtube clips, links, anecdotes, quote third parties’ authoritative views, and you speak in revelatory terms. It is the promotion of a doctrinal belief-as-faith as prescribed by others. But perhaps you’ve had some experience that caused you to seek an explanation that fits with what you would like to believe? Again, that is something we hear of all the time on religious forums.

I post not to reinforce belief, but to provide information that others can use to go see for themselves.

Now we both know that isn’t true! There’s not been so much as a single post where your purpose has been to show readers how to see what it is you claim to see - unsurprisingly. All you’ve done is to denounce reason, chide disbelievers, and exhort people to lay aside their thoughts - which is something that folk do anyway as I’ve explained previously without their having to be instructed by mystics or self-styled gurus. The ‘go see for themselves’ is simply the get-out clause when you are up against the wall and unable to show how the claimed experience is not illusion. No, I’m sorry but it seems to me that this is all about the advocate (prior-self), bulking up the belief, rather than an act of philanthropy.

I am not interested in belief in any particular doctrine, but you seem to be obsessed with stating and re-stating that belief over and over again ad nauseum no matter what I have said to the contrary. In fact, you have yet to provide the doctrine of belief to which you allude. Enlightenment, satori, and pondfrogleapsplash are not beliefs..I repeat...NOT beliefs...they are EXPERIENCES, without belief, opinion, idea, concept or conjecture attached to them in any way.

A doctrine is a body of teaching, advocating steps or principles, confirmed for us in this case when you methodically explained the steps and processes that ‘Enlightenment’ comprises.

BTW, you may see a seeming contradiction in my claim of no-doctrine while referring you to a book with the title 'Supreme Doctrine' in it. Well, Zen calls itself the 'doctrineless doctrine', and 'a finger pointing to the moon', and that is what makes Zen's 'doctrineless doctrine' supreme. Hoping you see this clearly. Later...

No matter how you or anyone else tries to explain it away it isn’t a ‘seeming contradiction’ because of a stupendously simple reason that even the Zen doctrine itself must acknowledge; and it is that regardless of any question concerning the truth of what is said it cannot for all that be unsaid. A doctrine, therefore, is a doctrine.

 

[Thief]

OK. Good exchanges. But now, what if the program that God devised is actually a game, a drama to be acted out, and that God himself decided to engage himself in the game, that is to say, in more conventional terms, 'to become flesh', wherein he took the character he decided to play so seriously that he became lost in it, and actually believed himself to be that character in reality? In other words, what if God forgot that his presence on earth was a game he himself had devised. In forgetting his divine nature, he would bind himself to the rules of the game in a manner that makes the game a serious endeavor, in which the rules become overly important, especially in light of the fact that he knows no other reality beyond this structured game he calls life. He would end up being you and I and all manifestations of the universe, playing all the parts simultaneously, in a cosmic game of Hide and Seek. In fact, he would be playing the game so intently, that to attempt to awaken him from this trancelike state, he would resist you tooth and nail. The more you try to tell him that the character he is playing is only part of a game that he himself had devised, and the rules are not ultimately to be taken seriously. He then would cling ever more fiercely to his character, perhaps accusing you of outright criminal heresy in suggesting such an idea. So you would need to devise a trick to make him see through his own delusion. Nothing else works.

Now, what if, further, when God strictly and very solemnly forbade Adam and Eve to eat of the Forbidden Fruit, he did not actually mean what he was saying. In other words, by commanding them NOT to eat of the Fruit, he was creating a trick, a piece de resistance in the minds of Adam and Eve, who took the rules of the game of life seriously, he was actually ensuring that they DO eat of the Fruit, by piquing their curiosity, KNOWING full well that they would do as all children do, and do exactly the opposite of what they were commanded NOT to do? To what end, you might ask? Think of Adam and Eve as having forgotten their divine nature, living the life of an ordinary human, and think of the 'Fruit' as a symbol for the divine nature, or Higher Consciousness. By forcing them into breaking the arbitrary rules of the game (which have become all too serious) by overcoming their resistance with an object of DESIRE, and partaking of the 'Fruit', they can then awaken and return to their former divine state, 'awakening' here being equivalent to their eyes being opened. Remember that the serpent told them that the reason God did not want them to eat of the Fruit was because God did not want them to 'see as He sees', which is none other than God, or Higher Consciousness.

So here is an example of God's 'logic' which is not logic in the ordinary sense at all, but pure logic in the higher sense.

So in terms of OUR human experience at this moment, we ARE the divine nature itself pretending to be whatever character we now find ourselves immersed in, firmly believing that character to be the real McCoy, when, in fact, it is pure fiction. And if you go to a Zen temple, they might give you a koan, a riddle to 'solve' which will trick your rational mind and you will awaken to realize who you really, really are. No amount of belief, logic, thought, or reason will convince you; only a powerful transformative experience can do that, where you see that what you were seeking was right under your nose all along, and you end up right where you are at this very moment.

Now go and thoroughly enjoy your 'Forbidden Fruit'. Just don't take it too seriously, LOL.

And, oh, by the way, the serpent in the version of Genesis I have presented? He is none other than the Godhead himself, playing the part that ensures that Adam & Eve eat of the Forbidden Fruit. There is no Boogeyman, folks. He is just part of The Big Act. Get over it, or go stark raving mad, LOL.

If you are willing as you have posted here.....
Then we ARE separate of God.
The soul is that breath mentioned in Genesis, and each one of us is unique because of this flesh we walk around in.

And to say the forbidden fruit was a set-up?....fine....I can go there.
Having bestowed freewill on Day Six....
Having altered the body and spirit of Man....Chapter Two...
The forbidden fruit would then be a litmus test to be sure the alteration had taken hold.

Any denial is then portrayed as the serpent....the Adversary.

All life as part of God?.....sure.....if you insist.
All spirit as God?....nay.
And those portions that make denial will fade away.

The better portions that have better spirit, shall live on.

 

[godnotgod]

So you begin with an assumption formed from some internal imagery from which you then run to a conclusion. I can quite accept that someone has had an unusual or life-changing experience, which is both vivid and meaningful, a phenomenon that is not particularly uncommon. And I can believe that you believe you’ve experienced supra-reality. But what I’m disputing with you are your extravagant, unsupported assertions and claims to absolute knowledge.

Excuse me, but I have never made such a claim. You are adding things to what I have said that are'nt there.

As for 'life-changing experiences', I am not referring to the garden variety type of life changes that everyone goes through in the maturation process. Those kinds of changes are still within the sphere of a conditioned existence, and do not provide a view into the nature of reality.

And that is just what you’ve been doing all along, giving second-hand information. You are posting on a religious forum, not a philosophy site

Your ignorance is flaring up once again. If you knew anything at all, you would know how they are linked.

I have never presented any second-hand religious doctrine as descriptive of the spiritual experience. I have presented other sources to as an elaboration of a point I may have been trying to make, but those sources reflect first-hand experiences.

you copy and paste your high priests’ words verbatim, you post youtube clips, links, anecdotes, quote third parties’ authoritative views, and you speak in revelatory terms.

So what? None of them are preaching a religious doctrine that you are being asked to believe in. They are making statements that prompt YOU to reflect on what is being said, so that YOU can determine their validity via of your own authority.

It is the promotion of a doctrinal belief-as-faith as prescribed by others.

What is the specific doctrine to which you refer? So far, you have failed to provide this information.

But perhaps you’ve had some experience that caused you to seek an explanation that fits with what you would like to believe? Again, that is something we hear of all the time on religious forums.

There is nothing beyond the experience itself that is required. You're just making things up to suit YOUR preconceived notions.

Now we both know that isn’t true! There’s not been so much as a single post where your purpose has been to show readers how to see what it is you claim to see - unsurprisingly. All you’ve done is to denounce reason, chide disbelievers, and exhort people to lay aside their thoughts - which is something that folk do anyway as I’ve explained previously without their having to be instructed by mystics or self-styled gurus. The ‘go see for themselves’ is simply the get-out clause when you are up against the wall and unable to show how the claimed experience is not illusion. No, I’m sorry but it seems to me that this is all about the advocate (prior-self), bulking up the belief, rather than an act of philanthropy.

Well, you're just plain ignorant, or wrong, or both. As a small example, I explained several times the difference between being and existence, primarily because most people do not stop to think about it. I also presented pages of discussion on the nature of Time, and how, contrary to our social indoctrination which tells us that time progresses from past to present to future, I presented an argument to show that it actually moves from present to past. And I was on the verge of trying to lead Thief into a discussion of what was meant by 'becoming as little children' as a qualification to enter 'Paradise', but he screwed up the discussion. Again, this idea is one which most people do not really think about, as they simply accept these doctrines as true without question, but do not actually understand what they mean. In all my posts, all I have been trying to do is to prompt others to see something they have overlooked.

I never proposed that anyone 'need' a guru or mystic. You only need one if you feel the need for one, just as you go to a psychiatrist because you feel such need. True that there are self-styled and fake gurus, but there are authentic ones as well who are capable of getting someone out of their own fix with a simple word or two, or a gesture. Ultimately, no one can see for someone else, and can only get what they seek by going to see for themselves. There is no other way.

Re: 'prior self': I do not give credence to your doctrinal belief in such a 'willow the wisp' entity. Perhaps you can use it to launch a new religion: "I am the Prior-Self LOL; no man gets to the After-Self lest he believe in ME".

What a joke! Personally, I believe firmly in the "After-Self".

A doctrine is a body of teaching, advocating steps or principles, confirmed for us in this case when you methodically explained the steps and processes that ‘Enlightenment’ comprises.

Thank you for your definition, but that does not apply to a finger pointing to the moon, nor to 'pondfrogleapslpash'. Try again.

No matter how you or anyone else tries to explain it away it isn’t a ‘seeming contradiction’ because of a stupendously simple reason that even the Zen doctrine itself must acknowledge; and it is that regardless of any question concerning the truth of what is said it cannot for all that be unsaid. A doctrine, therefore, is a doctrine.

Is that so? Your brilliance is indeed astounding to behold; too bad it has nothing to do with Zen which is a direct reflection of reality, and contains nary a whiff of any doctrine whatsoever, for the stupendously simple reason that Zen is not a belief in reality, but the direct apprehension of it, via of seeing, totally contrary to what you continue to insist upon, for the ridiculously simple reason that you carry the wretched excess of your Western philosophical baggage hither and thither, thereby repeatedly contaminating the pristine Present with the past, or, to be more specific, with the ridiculous notion of a 'Prior Self' (ROFLOL) you yourself hatched within the confines of your own mental encapsulations, showing once again, that the mind is a self-created principle.

Once again, I point to the moon, and you rabidly lunge at my pointing finger, having missed seeing. But that's OK, as you will eventually tire of such futility, and will be in need of seeking another approach, and if you are fortunate, may simply see things as they...or rather, IT is, having dropped your baggage for one brief moment.

 

[apophenia]

Excuse me,

Excuse me for interrupting, but I just noticed your new signature.

If you can find it, check out a book of short stories called 'The Barnum Museum' by Steven Millhauser. It includes a story, "Klassic Komix #1" which is 'The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock' presented as a description of the panels in a comic book. Wonderful.

Anyway, continue ...

 

[Disciple of Christ]

The idea has occurred to others, of course. If it were somehow true then at least God would not be the morally reprehensible character the false premise [ie., if his actual arrangement is taken as-read rather than as a benevolent deception to nudge people toward knowledge] makes him appear.

The concept is probably too philosophically sophisticated to be accepted, alas. Most of the people who follow the rote, prefer it, because it grants them moral authority [and in many cases, spiritual 'powers'] they do not earn, and the haughty judgment of others of the self-righteous.

But, as I've said before, if I were God imagining other people, I definitely would have made most of you a lot smarter.

What makes you believe you are not god yourself? What would be your logical reasoning be for this?

 

[waitasec]

What makes you believe you are not god yourself? What would be your logical reasoning be for this?

well first you and HH have to agree on the definition of god....
that could take a life time to figure out. no, no, it will take a life time to figure out.

 

[Thief]

well first you and HH have to agree on the definition of god....
that could take a life time to figure out. no, no, it will take a life time to figure out.

Let's try...Almighty....it's self explanatory.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

What makes you believe you are not god yourself? What would be your logical reasoning be for this?

My logical reason is actually right there in the sentence I think you are responding to.

I would have done a far better job if I were God.

 

[Thief]

My logical reason is actually right there in the sentence I think you are responding to.

I would have done a far better job if I were God.

This arrogance can be tested.
Start a thread.

 

[PolyHedral]

Let's try...Almighty....it's self explanatory.

It really isn't. As HH has told you repeatedly.

 

[Thief]

It really isn't. As HH has told you repeatedly.

And what portion of the term escapes you?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

This arrogance can be tested.
Start a thread.

Weren't you told, God never has to prove himself to you?

[lol]

 

[godnotgod]

The idea has occurred to others, of course. If it were somehow true then at least God would not be the morally reprehensible character the false premise [ie., if his actual arrangement is taken as-read rather than as a benevolent deception to nudge people toward knowledge] makes him appear.

The concept is probably too philosophically sophisticated to be accepted, alas. Most of the people who follow the rote, prefer it, because it grants them moral authority [and in many cases, spiritual 'powers'] they do not earn, and the haughty judgment of others of the self-righteous.

But, as I've said before, if I were God imagining other people, I definitely would have made most of you a lot smarter.

You see, the point is that there are two Gods, or divine natures. The one that is Essence, which I have just described as playing all the parts of his creation in the cosmic game of Hide and Seek, in which He sets up the trick of the Forbidden Fruit as a means for his creatures (himself asleep) to attain divine union out of pure unconditional love for them, and the stern, ruthless, moral God of Law, which you so protest against, who is nothing more than an egoic projection of Jewish culture & religion, and whose relationship with man is wholly conditional; the one that means it when He forbade A&E to eat of the Fruit.

In the first scenario, man partakes of the 'Verbotten Vrut'* of Higher Consciousness and divine union is achieved. Goal achieved. Story end. Man and God live happily ever after. No sin. No punishment. A story too good to be true from the standpoint of man's conditioned psychological state.

in the second scenario, which is a corrupted version of the first, the command is obviously misunderstood and taken seriously, man then being banished from Paradise, and having to go through his entire history of suffering and anguish until the final Judgment, when only a relative handful of those who merit a reward are chosen for divine union. The lion's share of the human harvest goes to the Devil, which negates the idea of Good triumphing over Evil, thereby rendering the story untenable.

(Contrast this with Mahayana ('Big Boat') Buddhism, for example, where everyone gets saved.)

*Throughout history, it is the unorthodox, mystical view that was always considered heretical and punishable via extreme means, even death. That ultimate symbol of divine authority on Earth, the Church, came down heavily on the Gnostics and other 'heretics' during the bloody, 400 year long Inquisition. In fact, it was the Jewish religious authorities who demanded the crucifixion and death of Yeshu, the leader of the Jewish mystical cult of the Essene Nazarenes, for blasphemy, wherein Yeshu claimed to be the divine essence himself.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

My logical reason is actually right there in the sentence I think you are responding to.

I would have done a far better job if I were God.

Then God is not perfect and you would be therfore you would be God, would you not? Or am I making the wrong assumption in that God (a god) is supposed to be perfect?